tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News June 9, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
our show, thanks for watching. thanks for watching fox news where we remain fast and fearless. i'm chris wallace. today, are we getting closer to big brother? >> this is a big deal, a really big deal. >> critics call the secret collection of millions of american's phone records government overreach. others on both sides of the aisle say it is keeping us safe. >> you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy. and zero inconvenience. >> it is legal. it has been authorized by congress. >> we'll talk about senator rand paul who sees a pattern in the surveillance programs and the administration scandals, an assault on the constitution. then, we'll get an inside look
at how government is looking over our shoulders. from general michael hayden, former head of the nsa and the cia and senator ron johnson of the homeland security committee. plus, president obama shakes up his national security team. >> i am extraordinarily proud to announce my new national security adviser, susan rice. >> the president intentionally did not put her up for secretary of state, because he did not want her facing senate confirmation. >> we will ask our sunday panel what it means for the president's second term agenda. all right now on "fox news sunday." and, hello again, from fox news in washington. revelations about the government monitoring phone records and e-mails have renewed questions about the balance between privacy and security. combine that with the scandals involving the irs targeting conservative groups and the department of justice snooping on reporters and critics say you
have a gofvernment that's too bg and too intrusive. one of those critics is senator rand paul. senator, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good morning. you call these government surveillance programs an astounding assault on the constitution. president obama calls them m modest enroacroachments on priv. >> in the abstract, you can complain about big brother and how this is a potential program run amuck. when you actually look at the details, then, i think we have struck the right balance. >> senator, in fact, all three branches of government, the congress, the president and the courts, have all approved these surveillance programs. how are they then unconstitutional? >> they are looking at 1 billion phone calls a day is what i read in the press. that doesn't sound like a modest
invasion of privacy. it sounds like an extraordinary invasion of privacy. the fourth amendment says you have to look at -- you can ask for a warrant specific to the purpose, place, and items. this is a general warrant. this is what we objected to and what our founding fathers fought the revolution over. they did not want generalized warrants where you can go house to house looking for things without specifying who you are targeting. >> well, let's look at the effects of the internet surveillance program as opposed to the phone surveillance program. in 2009, we were able, the nsa was able to intercept e-mails between an al qaeda bomber, rasheed rauf and nazbullah zazi.
that targets on foreign soil. >> my suspicion is the other side gelths ts to promote their and we don't get the information. >> my suspicion is that this gentlemen was targeted because they suspected him of being a terrorist. i have no problem if you have probable cause and target people that are terrorists and go after them and people they are connecting with. we are talking about trolling through billions of phone records. we are not talking about going after a terrorist. get a warrant go, after a terrorist or a murderer or a rapist but don't troll through 1 billion phone records every day. that is unconstitutional. i am going to see if i can challenge this at the supreme court level. i am going to ask all of the internet providers and phone companies, ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. if we get 10 million americans saying we don't want our phone
records looked at, then maybe somebody will wake up and things will change in washington i am going to talk about legislation in a second. let's talk about the practical effect of this. defenders of program say, if you want to find the needle in the hey stack, you have to have the haystack first. here is what your fellow republican, lindsey graham, has to say on this issue. >> in rand paul's world, you have almost no defenses against terrorists. >> i would say that's an unfair characterization. i want to go after terrorists as much as anyone. for example, we are looking through so much data that i think it makes our fight against terrorism worse. the boy that was one of the bombers, we didn't know he went
back to chetnia. they haven't gone through 25% of the audio they have. they are overwhelmed with data. i think it is bad police work. why didn't we know he had gone back to chetnia. we aren't doing good police work but are busy looking at the phone records of americans who haven't committed crimes. >> you talked about a supreme court challenge. you also say you are going to introduce something called the fourth amendment restoration ac. the fourth amendment to the bill of rights protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. try to get a little specific here. i know it is hard. as a practical matter, do you have any reason to believe that congress is going to go along with you on this. >> i think the american people are with me. i think if you talked to young people who use computers on a daily basis, they are absolutely
with me. they think your third party records. so, for example, what i spend on my visa each month, that's my business and where i spend it and whether i read conservative magazines or whether i subscribe to fox news or yahoo! or google, what i do in my private life is my private life. if you suspect me of a crime, have probable cause. over the last 30 or 40 years, we've said, once you give your records to your bank or visa company, that they are no longer private. i disagree vehemently with that. so much of our life is dinlg advertisdinlg digitized. i don't want my phone records being given to an administration i cannot trust. >> all of this comes at a time when president obama is involved in scandals or his administration is, the irs
targeted conservatives. t of justice snooping on reporters. do you see a pattern, a connection between the scandals and these government surveillance programs? >> yes, because i think it really makes people distrust their government even more when they are seeing the irs being used to go after political opponents. this much power is too much power to give any government, whether it is republican or democratic. i don't want that much power in the hands of a president. i think it is very, very worrysome. if we wake up and say, we don't want them looking at our phone records, we could reverse this. we went after legislation that we thought would invade the due process of the internet, millions came out. if we can have that again, people saying i want to be part of a class action suit that says, let's hear this at the supreme court level.
are you allowed to look at my phone records even though there is no probable cause i am involved with a crime? the president named susan rice, the former u.n. ambassador, to be the new national security adviser. you say, instead of being promoted, he should have fired her from misleading the country on benghazi. she is not subject to senate confirmation but as a member of the foreign relations committee, will you use the nomination of two others, former state department spokeswoman, victoria newland and samantha power, who has been named as ambassador. will you use this nominations to demand answers on benghazi? >> both miss nuland as well as ambassador rice were intimately involved with a misleading or a misdirection campaign after benghazi. i think really that you shouldn't promote someone who has been purposely misleading,
misleading the american public. i think it is appalling. neither one of them should be to their opinion. i don't have the possibility of stopping ambassador rice. miss nuland we are going to look at. she was hillary clinton's spokesman who says she had nothing to do with the talking points, even though her spokesman was rewriting them all night long to get out any reference to terrorism. i have no idea why they had this massive misdirection campaign when everybody thought it was a terrorist attacks in the beginning. unless the misdirection campaign was to get us away of the fact that the cia was dealing with arms to turkey at the time which was illegal at the time. >> to follow up, are you going to demand answers in benghazi and the nuland hearing? would you put a hold on her
nomination? >> i haven't decided on that. i want to know why we were misdirected and did miss nuland talk to hillary clinton that night. i would not have my spokes spokesperson making statements without talking to me. hillary clinton said, i had nothing to do with the talking points. her spokesman all night long was rewriting the talking points. i find it beyond creduality on friday, the senate began debate on comprehensive immigration form. you say you support that idea in concept. on the other hand, you now have come out against a new path to citizenship. you say that before any reform, that the border las to be secured first. senator, as a practical matter, isn't that going to prevent any kind of comprehensive reform? >> no. i still think we could have immigration reform. i think we need to fix the system. the reason we have 11 million
undocumented people, is because we have an unbroken system. they came here legally to work and found a better job. we prevent them from going from a farm job to a construction job. this bill does the same thing. if you don't fix that problem, you don't fix the reason why we have illegal immigration. expand the number of workers allowed to come into this country. i'm all for immigration. this puts new caps on immigrants coming in here to pick crops. it does some of the wrong things and doesn't secure the border. it says to the administration, why don't you have a plan to build a fence that we authorized ten years ago. that's absurd. that's like obama care saying, here, you, the administration, you guys do it, instead of congress doing the job and writing the bill and saying, my amendment says you have to do
this each year. >> you have democrats who want citizenship for the 11 million illegals and republicans that want tougher border enforcement. if you are not willing to compromise, you don't get comprehensive reform. >> i am willing to compromise. i would let you, if you have a work visa, also stand in the citizenship line but not a new citizenship line. there currently exists a line if you are in mexico city and you want to come and be a citizen of our country, you get in that line. i would let workers who are here on work visas get in the same line. i couldn't create a new pathway or a new line. what happens is, right now, it is illegal to stand in both lines. if you are here on a work visa, your not allowed to stand in line to come into the country permanently. i would let you stand in both lines, which would be a legal change. i wonuldn't create a new pathwa.
i am the conduit between con sa srvaties in the senate. why not come to a conservative like myself and say, he is willing to work with you. why not work with me to make the bill closer to what would be acceptable in the house? i am trying to make immigration work. they will have to come with with me and make the bill stronger if they want me to vote it. >> senator paul, thanks for coming in today. >> thanks. up next, the president pushes back over accusations his administration is spying on americans. >> nobody is listening to the content of people's phone calls. >> we'll continue our conversation of government surveillance with a man that
hey, look! a shooting star! make a wish! i wish we could lie here forever. i wish this test drive was over, so we could head back to the dealership. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. test drive! [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a jetta. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today.
senator paul has painted a picture of unconstitutional government overrace. we want to here in senator ron johnson and here in washington, general michael hayden, former head of the nsa and the cia, who used to run the government surveillance program, now a global security consultant. senator johnson, you just heard rand paul. do you think that we need more restrictions on these government surveillance programs? >> good morning, chris. i'm every bit as concerned as civil liberties as senator paul. quite honestly, as most americans are.
that's a good thing. this is not a partisan issue. across the political spectrum, people are concerned about preserving our liberties and maintaining our civil liberties. at the same time, we face a very real asymmetric threat in the national terrorism and our greatest line of defense is against the terrorism, intelligence-gaining capabilities. that balance shifts based on the circumstances and the time. we do need congressional oversight on this. it is a good thing these laws come up for reauthorization. i am every bit as concerned with civil liberties. we are going to conduct robust oversight on these programs general hayden, let's talk about the general reaction you have to senator paul and i will get into specific issues. as the man that used to run these programs, how important and effective have they been in keeping us safe and how do you
hear when you hear about senator paul talk about class action lawsuits with the supreme court's new congressional restrictions? >> with regard to how effective they, they are very effective. we have had two very different presidents pretty much doing the same thing with regard to lk trick surveillance. that seems to suggest these things do work. with regard to what the senator says, if i believed nsa was doing some of the things the senator fears they were doing, i wod have been backstopping him. he says we are trolling through billions of records. that's not true. the government acquires records as business records from the telecom providers but doesn't go into that data base without an arguably reason connected to terrorism to ask that database a question. if you don't have any link to that original predicate, terrorism, your phone records are never touched.
>> let's get into that. i know we are getting into sensitive area with the trade crowd. according to one estimate, the nsa is getting the phone records of 3 billion of our phone calls every day. two questions, how can you possibly process 3 billion records a day? secondly, why not just target from the very beginning the bad guys? >> well, first of all, you have to identify who are the bad guys. let's begin with the acquisition. $3 billion is a big number. keep in mind, chris, that our telecommunications providers do that every day on their own. it is not impossible to do. now, you have the data stored. here is the important part. this is the part that protects civil liberties and balances what senator johnson wants to balance, security and our freedom. you ask the data base a question but the question has to be related to terrorism.
i give you a concrete example. this is very clear. >> you roll up someone in wiz ze zeristan. you know it is related to terrorism because of all the other pocket litter you have gotten. you simply ask that database, any of your phone numbers in there ever talk to this phone number in wizeristan. you are going in with a predicate, a probable cause, with an arguable reason why you are asking for the data. this has been the subject in washington and across the country this week. people are concerned about this mountain of da ta that you have. what you say sounds sense i believe. one, what do you do with all the records, the billions of records you have on all of us law-abiding citizens and what's the potential for abuse with the
fact that you have all of that stored in a computer? >> what do we do with all the other records, nothing. >> you keep it. >> of course, you do. you get the cell phone with that number six months from now. you want to know the history of that number. when does the value of that information begin to age off. you do retain the information so you can ask questions of it in the future. with regard to abuse, there are no records of abuse under president bush or president obama. i was criticized because i theoretically didn't have enough oversight mechanisms. no one accused us of abuse. president obama has in some ways added incredible oversight mechanisms to this. no abuse under either president. >> let me ask you about obama. senator johnson, i am going to bring you back in after this final question. back in 2006, senator obama voted against your nomination to
be c.i.a. director because of your involvement in government programs. from what you know, how much has he changed? he expanded and restricted these government programs that he inherited. >> in terms of surveillance, expanded in volume, changed the legal grounding for them a little bit, put it more under congressional authorization than the president's article ii powers. in terms of what nsa is doing, there is incredible continuity between the two presidents. >> what do you mean expanded in volume? >> because we have gotten more records over time. with the amendment to the fisa act in 2008, which senator obama finally voted for, nsa is actually empowered to do more things than i was empowered to do under president bush's special authorization. let's turn to foreign policy. senator johnson, as we discussed with senator paul, the president named a new national security adviser this week, susan rice,
the former u.n. ambassador that infamously went out on the sunday talk shows. what do you think of that? i am going to ask the same question i asked senator paul. what do you think of the nominations of victor nulan as assess tant secretary of state and samantha power as ambassador? will you he's them to try to get some answers on benghazi. >> it is not surprising that president obama appointed secretary rice but it is disappointing that he chose at this moment when, his administration is going through a crisis of credibility. the reason this nsa thing has blown up, the american people have lost their faith in president obama and his administration. i am not the only one saying that. "the new york times" is saying, this administration has lost all credibility. susan rice was at the person at the center of misleading america on benghazi.
it is incredibly disappointed. what we need to do on benghazi, the next step, we need to get the names of the survivors and get those folks up in congress and tell us what happened, what assets might have been in place. if we have to utiliz these nominations to get that information, i think that might be an appropriate course of action. >> would you consider putting a whole on the nuland or power nam nations as leverage to get this information? >> that's a possibility. when secretary clinton came before our committee. in response to my questioning her, she asked her own difference. what difference does it mean? we are starting to see what the difference is when the american people lose faith in this administration. i think a healthy discrust is a good thing. i want americans to look at the awesome power of government in other ways. to take 45% of your income and
your estate and tell you what doctor you can utilize, what kind of health care treatments are made available to you. this is about limiting our government. americans need to be very skeptical of an everexpanding, evermore powerful government. >> i want to ask you about another as smepect of the bengh attack. the first draft on the screen, on the left were the first talking points drafted by the cia. they talked about links to al qaeda. months of attacks against western interests in ben ga is zi before the fatal attack on the consulate. all of that was taken out of the much smaller talking points that she used on the talk shows. from what you've read, is there anything unusual about the ed
ditting? >> the most unusual thing is that the cia was writing the talk points. on a good sunday morning, you get policy talks. on most, you get political talks. neither of those are intelligence talks. why is the intelligence organization writing when the page is blank? the way this should happen, it is a policy side. write down what it is they want to reveal to american people and send it up river for the cia, i'm going to be a little flip here, to check the spelling and the facts. al qaeda, terrorists, extremists, are all words reasonably accurate in describing what happened. each is freighted with political targ go. why do you put the intelligence organization in the role of deciding which one to use? >> they didn't decide t was decided by the policy and political people. how do you explain what was left out? >> i explained it through a very
bad process, that began bad by having the intelligence guys draw up the first points. >> finally, senator johnson. >> can i just quick -- >> go ahead. >> i think what this administration was trying to cover up is their gross negligence, the fact that they did not only provide the security that was necessary in benghazi but that they ramped down the security to make the american people believe that all is well in benghazi and all is well with the mafrp policies. that's what we need to get to the bottom of. >> less than a minute left. senator johnson, very generally and briefly on immigration, which is now on the senate floor. what changes do you need to see to the legislation to support it? >> i want to see an immigration
bill passed. we have to fix this system. it is not good for anybody. we need to make sure the borders are going to be secure. we also need to make sure basically benefits don't blow to people that are here illegally. i'm very hopeful we can pass a bill. i agree with senator paul, the challenge is going to be getting it through the house. we have to strengthen those conditions so we have a bill that passes the house. >> senator johnson, senator hayden, i want to say thank you both for coming in. is the government's monitoring of phone calls on the internet over the line or our new normal. our sunday panel joins the debate next.
as for our common defense we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. >> we're going to have to make some choices. >> president obama's message on privacy versus security seems to have changed since his first inauguration in 2009. time now to bring in our sunday group. bill kristol from "the weekly standard." mara liasson from national public radio, mary matalin, and peter baker. bill is someone that i suspect thinks that these surveillance programs are a necessary part of the war on terror. do you worry that all of the leaks and disclosures are going
to create some sort of backlash? >> i do, particularly because they're coming into context of genuine abuses of government power especially by the irs. i think the big thing to remember is national security is different from internal management of the government. we're dealing with foreign terrorist threats here and secondly, apparently this program really does require court orders to target particular individuals or groups and you can't just migrate through the whole database and data mine and say this looks suspicious. you need to say and this is grouped in waziristan and let's see who they're talking to and if they're talking to me you have to go back to the group and get an order to me. later on our own we decided to target people who had tea party in there. >> when rand paul says let's have specific targeting and vacuum up all of this information and law-abiding citizens, that certainly has at least a political appeal. >> a, i think it's mischaracterizing what's happening. they're getting a lot of data
because they don't want to have to go to verizon and at&t and everyone else each time they get a phone number, but they're not allowed to get into that data until they have a particular warrant signed off on by a judge with cause to suspect a foreigner on terrorism and that is totally different from the irs abuses which i think is serious and it's for conservatives or republicans to make that distinction. >> mara, the president said he welcomes a public debate over these. the fact is this only came out because of these completely unauthorized leaks. he wasn't about to tell us about these programs. >> no, he wasn't. he says he wants a public debate over liberty versus security, what we are willing to give up. he says you can't be 100% pure, 100% private and 100% convenient. in order for the public to have the debate, they have to know what this is. so i do think that ironically the dni moved to declassify some of these programs so they can defend it and that actually, i think is healthy and good and now the public should know what's happening and they can decide if it's worth it.
we want the government to know everything about the tsarnaev brothers in advance, but they don't want anyone to look at our phone records and everything that can exist at the same time. we are going to have a debate now. >> it was interesting. the president on friday was at pains to say that he was skeptical of this program when he came into office, but that he scrubbed it and he added safeguards on it, do you think he flipped on surveillance what once he became commander in chief. >> he flips on everything. it is political. for him -- when it is bush's policy, it is a false choice. when it is his policy, it is trading, tradeoffs. what the policy is, as general hayden pointed out, is much stronger under this president. and the technology has forced us into following the phones and the emails rather than following the people in the -- as the old system used to be, but you
cannot -- the problem is it is the right thing to do and it is how we connect the dots and just because it's the right thing to do doesn't mean it will be done right and what people can't see is this. what they can't see is it's conflation with the irs, horrible, horrible. >> bus abuse of private liberti and privacy. so you can't take these things in a vacuum. in this obama care and all of the rest are not just scandals and the intrusiveness and the overreach of the government, people, of course, the public rightly attaches it to this kind of intelligence gathering. >> this is interesting, peter. and, frankly, to watch what happens in the panel because there's a difference between government surveillance program which has been approved by congress which there is a court buy-in on, and the president says that he's outraged by, the irs snooping on reporters.
you've heard our two republican members here try to inflate the two. does the white house worry that the public is going to conflate the two saying the surveillance programs and scandal is part of a big government overreach? >> that is a concern. this is an administration for four and a half years that has stood for the idea of activist government, whether it be obama care or tighter regulation of wall street and then you add these layers of additional policies and/or scandals and it creates a broader, it touches the broader concern people have had about president obama's administration from the start. he is trying to distinguish between the two. it's not easy. this is something that is outrageous. this is something you should be comfortable with and this is why it's not an easy task for any president and he'll get out there and try to do that more. >> i'm against inflating the two. just to be clear. i am against the irs targeting citizens exercising their rights
to associate and advance the cause they believe in. i'm against the irs. i am for the national security agency targeting foreign terrorists and you could be for targeting foreign terrorists and to stop terrorism and against targeting u.s. citizens exercising their constitutional rights. >> are you for -- >> they'll never be con flighted. i think it's serious political party. >> we're in vigorous agreement that the consistent and cumulative dismembering of the bill of rights from our religious liberty, our privacy, our right to bear arms, free speech, free press, all of it, fast and furious. i'm not conflating them substantively, but this government, this administration has shown a consistent propensity to dismember a bill of rights. >> on the surveillance side of
it, he's simply continued and you could argue well that he's been hypocritical to do it, he simply is continuing programs he's inherited from george w. bush. >> that's a vigorous agreement. we have to have these programs to connect the dots. we have to follow people. we do not need to target american citizens unless there's some evidence of proximity to foreign terrorists and it is a good program, it's a necessary program, but it cannot be -- let me just quote rush limbaugh, my beloved. it's not like colonel sanders is collecting this information. you cannot separate the politics from the policy. democrats never did when george bush was president. >> that's why the government does this at its peril if there was instance of abuse when there was information on the terrorism was used in some way or disseminated in some way, that's where the potential for abuse is and that's why maybe the patriot act does need to be toughened to make sure if there's accidental
incidental information on americans collected it's somehow protected. >> let me just get into one more issue with you, peter. all of this comes just a week after the president made his big speech when he talked about the war on terror winding down, eventually repealing the authorization of the use of military force. isn't it going to be harder? this is a political matter, as a practical matter to justify the sweeping government surveillance when you say we've reached a crossroads. >> we've returned to a period like the '90s where terrorism was regular, but not existential kind of threat. we had terrorism in the past prior to 9/11, but we return to that kind of era. we are not going to return to that kind of era when it comes to surveillance and otherwise. it reflects ambivalence, and he's uncomfortable with the idea of a global war on terror. he does not like that term he inherited from president bush and he would like to wind that down in some ways.
republicans critics continue to see her as the public face of the benghazi scandal. in your story, peter, you talked about the president's, quote, your words, defiant selection. how much was this mr. obama telling republicans you are not going to push me around? >> i think it is. he has had a much more assertive approach to nominations and appointments since he passed over susan rice, didn't give her secretary of state, gave it to john kerry. since then, he said, i'm going to put up chuck hagel and vib victoria nuland and tom perez and jena mccarthy. they have decided they don't think they can work with republicans on the hill. he is going to sort of dare them, in effect, to reject people he thinks is qualified. >> you would agree that sometimes presidents need to stand up to their opponents. was this the right time, place, and person to do it with?
>> this transcended political defines. this is aface-slapping, eye-gouging, counter protective political movement. he settled for that. an inept and is diundistinguish national security adviser in the white how the. pit her against john kerry, who is a serious guy, even though i disagree with him. it has elevated samantha power, who is a world renowned anti-genocide supporter. she puts it in access to persecution of christians, the slaughter, the rape of christians throughout the middle east. this is going to cause problems for the president's policy. >> let's talk about that, ma ra.
because obviously the real question is will these new people mean new policies and both manage a power and susan rice are seen as being more interventionists than some of the people in the old team. do you expect the president to actually change his foreign policy? >> no, i don't. i think this is a swap not a shakeup. this is a very white house centric foreign policy. it will continue to be so. it's true that susan rice pushed for intervention in libya and she talked about the searing lessons she learned from being in the clinton administration about rwanda and samantha powers that human rights, anti-genocide activist, but neither has been in the intervention on syria and they seem to be with the president on that. i don't think that -- it's possible that human rights might get a higher profile. both of these women will be high profile people just because of who they are. i don't see the foreign policy of the administration changing. i don't think we will be more inclined to get involved with syria, for instance.
>> they both were pushing for getting involved in libya and there were people in the administration that weren't onboard with that. they're not for getting involved more deeply or more aggressively in syria. what do you think? is this just a change in faces or do you see the change in policy with susan rice and samantha power? >> i wish there was a change in policy but i don't think there will be one. she was quoted in the newspaper saying, the question isn't these officials or the advisers. the problem is not the advice the president has been getting so much as his own presidential priorities. it's pretty amazing that we talked about the problem and she is foreign to issues in the syria, because she is a serious interventionist. i think samantha power would be left for intervention in syria, but the chance that either of these two will turn around a president who is committed to withdraw. he's proud of getting out of iraq even though iraq is
now degenerating to the kind of situation in 2006 before the surge. he is proud of getting out of iraq regardless of the timetable on the ground. he is pleased with not having intervened in syria even though it's a bloodbath so the problem is president obama. >> chris: peter let me ask you, as someone that cover6qhq-: the white house for the times and what are they saying about the significance of these picks in terms of policy. >> in terms of policy you have to balance them again john kerry and chuck hagel and white foot advocates because of their appointment. they need to be doubling down on the notion of more modest role around the world out of iraq and afghanistan. they are going to advocate on the other side but the president has made up his mind on syria and i don't think he has an÷oou> chris: what we thought was the big news this
weekend is the presidential summit out in palm springs÷., s, california, where the chinese president, the headlines are they agree on north korean nukes and greenhouse gases. they don't agree on cyber espionage, what is your takeaway from this? >> this is eight hours of meetings between the two presidents without the ties and relaxed setting. we don't know exactly what happened inside the meetings whether they formed a real bond or not. the revelation of these programs and advance of the meetings obviously flavored any ability american president to lecture a chinese president about cyber security. >> chris: somebody who has been with presidents and vice presidents. do we from the outside what happens in the meetings or can they really be
important. >> i had the honor and privilege of assaulting with the vice president when he visited with the former chinese president, when he was vice president. taking off your@lfaç tie doesn't change how the chinese react to us. they sit at a table. that was ra congratulate photo op but cyber business is really scary. did you read about in the campaign. can you imagine if campaign documents were cyber stolen, it could ppen to anything. >> chris: let me askw3ñr you about the cyber. with all the scoops the president has issued a direct identify to the national security team to prepare for cyber warfare. what does that mean. [ laughter ] >> at least he understands there are enemies out there and we have to prepare to to deal with them and
ñ that we may engaged with our enemies in the future. so i have no parted at all with that. >> your thoughts about cyber warfare.u+z >> it sounds like he didn't get anywhere with the chinese on this issue. what we don't know is what we're doing to them. we have just as much capability to hack into their computers as they do in ours. >> chris: okay. thank you panq. see you next week. don't forget the panel plus where our group picks up on our decision att( foxnews.com and make sure to follow us on twitter. up next, a former power player of the week takes on a new challenge.
>>. >> chris: it isn't often in washington that people turn down big jobs to take a smaller assignment. we met a special woman that didn't want to tell others what to do. she wanted to be the front lines herself. >> i wanted to be part of understanding what goes on in the day care day to day. i wanted to literally make sure my hands and feet were applied directly to the problem every day. >> patty stone is
explaining to take over as head of martha's table that provides meals, infant care and afterschool programs to more than thousand homeless and low income people every day. >> they may need clothing and they may need nutritional support and learn how to promote literacy at home. >> chris: what is surprising about her role, you have to know where she came from. in the '80s she was top woman in microsoft making tens of millions of dollars. in 1997 bill and melinda gates made her head of the foundation. >> how much money did you give away? >> i gave away over $25 billion. >> chris: we caught up with her four years ago when he taken care the smithsonian museum? >> i think all of the work
comes back to the power of the individual to have a quality of life and an impact with their life. >>t(ñr chris: when her term ended there, the question was, what next? given her background she got a lot of big offers. >> chris: president of the university? >> absolutely. >> head of an aid organization? >> absolutely. >> why did you end up here? >> it requires at a different scale. a lot of it is leading other leaders and i wanted to stand to change their lives. >> chris: she teaches kids how to read. >> you like to turn the pages. >> or in the food kitchen been some of the 10,000 volunteer who has help prepare meals for the homeless. >> that looks good. >> chris: she says she has no regrets going from the gates foundation with a staff of foundation and endowment of $36 billion to martha's table with a budget ofñvlrnñ $4 million.
>> chris: are there frustrations? >> every day when you run a nonprofit, i wish i had the money. the stage may be smaller but the goals aren't. you want to end hunger in washington, d.c.? >> there are 30,000 children in d.c. >> we noticed she begin to tear up. your eyes got misty there. >> if you have a chance to affect the life of one child it's an honor. [ laughter ] >> chris: martha's table has been around 33 years. she says one of great joys to see people that went there as children and now have college degrees and are now giving back. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday.
>> sean: welcome to the special studio audience edition of "hannity." s groupwe're joined by a of great americans, mostarge unfairly targeted by the irs a because of their associationve with fairs conservativeu organizations. coming up, you'll hearill their stories about what they've donem through, also hear from the attorneys representing their respective groups. first one of the most fas fascinating things to watch ove the past few weeks is the ever-changing time n.l. of whoat knew about the irs scandal. at first, nobody seemed to know anything about it. as the day goes by, that seems to be evolving quite a bit. watch this. >> can you give us assurances that the irs is not targeting particularar gro groups based ou political